ID: GF005899

Ms. Robin C. DesCamp
Blount International, Inc.
PO Box 22127
Portland , OR 97269-2127

Dear Ms. DesCamp:

            This responds to your August 26, 2004, letter and subsequent e-mail to George Feygin of my staff. You ask whether various items manufactured by your company for logging purposes would be classified as “motor vehicles” and subject to the agency’s early warning reporting (EWR) regulations (set forth in 49 CFR Part 579) or to our vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements (49 CFR Part 565).  As explained below, based on the information you provided, we do not consider the items to be motor vehicles for the purposes of our regulations. Thus, the EWR and VIN requirements do not apply.

           Title 49 U.S.C Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines “motor vehicle” as:

“[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.”

NHTSA has issued several interpretations of this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles.

In the present case, the information you have provided describes specialized cranes and loaders made for delimbing and loading logs. Although the cranes are equipped with wheels, the pictures and the description of the logging cranes indicate that they are intended to remain at a single location for prolonged periods of time. Your letter confirms that these cranes are moved only infrequently between logging sites.

Based on this information, it appears that the logging cranes are akin to airport runway vehicles or items of mobile construction equipment that do not travel on highways on a recurring basis. Accordingly, we find that the logging cranes described in your letter are not “motor vehicles.” Because these machines are not motor vehicles, they are not subject to our regulations and requirements, including those of the EWR and VIN programs. 

I hope you find this information helpful.  If you have any other questions please contact Mr. George Feygin at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel

ref:571

d.11/5/04

ID: GF005903

Mr. Mark Jagow
Pacific Coast Retreaders
333 Hegenberger Road, Suite 705
Oakland, CA 94621-1463




Dear Mr. Jagow:

This is in response to your June 1, 2005, letter in which you ask about certain tire marking requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. Specifically, you ask if you are required to mark the maximum single load rating on tires intended to be used exclusively in tandem. Our answer is yes.

S6.5(d) of FMVSS No. 119 requires that the truck tires be marked on each sidewall with, among other things, the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure for the particular tire. This information must be "shown as follows":

(Mark on tires rated for single and dual load): Max load single __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold. Max load dual __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold.

(Mark on tires rated only for single load): Max load __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold.

Different labeling requirements thus apply depending on whether tires are rated for "single and dual load" or "only for single load".We interpret this provision to require all tires to be rated and marked in one of these two manners; i.e., it is not permissible to mark tires as rated only for dual load. Thus, truck tires rated for dual load applications, including those produced solely for tandem use, must also be labeled with the maximum single load rating in addition to the dual load rating. This is because the tires intended for tandem use could nevertheless be purchased and installed in single application. We believe there is a safety benefit in informing vehicle operators who may use your tires in a way that you did not intend; i.e., in a single application, that the load ratings are different when the tires are not installed in tandem.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Assistant Chief Counsel
for Vehicle Safety Standards and Harmonization

ref:119
d.9/7/05

ID: GF005919

Mr. Robert Strassburger
Vice President, Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005




Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your July 1, 2005, letter asking us to clarify certain issues discussed in our response to petitions for reconsideration of the April 4, 2004, final rule expanding parts marking requirements. Specifically, you ask us to clarify the phase-in calculation procedures, and how exempted vehicle lines should be considered relative to the phase-in calculation.

On May 19, 2005, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published its response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule expanding parts marking requirements (see 70 FR 28843). As a part of this response, we adopted a phase-in of the expanded parts marking requirements over a two-year period. Specifically, a new section 541.3(c) reads as follows:

"For vehicles listed in subparagraphs (1)(i) to (iv) of this section that are (1) not subject to the requirements of this standard until September 1, 2006, and (2) manufactured between September 1, 2006, and August 31, 2007; a manufacturer needs to meet the requirements of this part only for lines representing at least 50% of a manufacturers total production of these vehicles." [emphasis added]

In your letter, you describe two possible interpretations of the phase-in requirement. In short, the first interpretation states that at least 50% of the production volume of the affected vehicles must be marked beginning September 1, 2006. The second interpretation states that at least 50% of the affected vehicle lines must be marked beginning September 1, 2006. To illustrate your question, you also offered the following hypothetical example:

Manufacturer XYZ has seven vehicle lines that are affected by the parts marking expansion.

Line	Production Volume
A	500,000
B	300,000
C	200,000
D	200,000
E	100,000
F	100,000
G	100,000
Total:	1,500,000

The first interpretation is correct and accurately reflects the regulatory text.That is, at least 50% of the production volume of affected vehicles must be marked beginning September 1, 2006. Using the example provided in your letter, the XYZ manufacturer could comply with the phase-in by marking the A and B lines, or A and C and E (or F or G lines) because together, these lines represent more than 50% of the production volume of affected vehicles.

The second interpretation does not accurately reflect the regulatory text because at least 50% of the vehicle lines (instead of the actual vehicles) could nevertheless amount to a smaller percentage of the vehicle fleet subject to the expanded parts marking requirements. For example, if the XYZ manufacturer marks lines D through F, the number of lines marked (4) will exceed 50% but the number of vehicles marked (500,000) would amount to less than 34% of the affected fleet. This outcome was not contemplated by the agency when issuing the response to petitions for reconsideration.

We note that the discussion on page 28848 of the preamble, which you believe raises the question of how to interpret the phase in requirements, sought to underscore the necessity of marking the entire vehicle line chosen for phase-in. For example, if the XYZ manufacturer chooses to mark A, C, and E lines, it must not stop marking the E vehicle line, once the total number of marked vehicles reaches 750,001.

You also ask how the exempted vehicle lines should be considered relative to the phase-in calculation. You are correct to note that the newly exempted vehicle lines must be included in the numerator and the denominator when calculating compliance with the phase-in. Using the XYZ manufacturer example, let us assume that vehicle line B was exempted from parts marking requirement. If XYZ manufacturer marks vehicle line A, it would be in compliance with the phase-in requirements because vehicle lines A and B represent more than 50% of the affected vehicles.

Finally, in your letter, you suggest that the agency amend the scope of the de minimis exemption for vehicle lines manufactured in quantities of not more than 3,500. That language currently reads as follows:

"(b) Exclusions. This standard does not apply to the following:

(2) Passenger motor vehicle parts identified in 541.5(a) that are present in a line with an annual production of not more than 3,500 vehicles."

You ask that we change the regulatory language such that the vehicle lines sold in the U.S. in quantities of not more than 3,500 would be exempted. We believe that no amendment is necessary. Ordinarily, our standards apply only to vehicles manufactured for sale in the Unites States. Thus, the de minimis exemption applies to vehicles lines manufactured in quantities of not more than 3,500 for sale in the U.S.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:541
d.8/5/05

ID: GF005930

Mr. Greg Hayes
Benson International
PO Box 970
Mineral Wells, WV 26150

Dear Mr. Hayes:

This letter is in response to your e-mail asking whether a previous interpretation letter from this agency to Mr. Larry Strawhorn is still valid. Specifically, you ask whether it is permissible to take power from the antilock brake system (ABS) power circuit of a semi-trailer in order to power other semi-trailer devices. You also ask whether it is permissible to take power directly from the ABS module.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

The Federal standard applicable to ABS systems in trucks and trailers with air brakes is Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air brake systems.

In a November 17, 1995, letter of interpretation addressed to Mr. Larry Strawhorn of the American Trucking Associations, the agency stated that under S5.1.6.3 of FMVSS No. 121, the ABS power circuits sole function must be to provide ABS powering, and other trailer devices may not be powered off this separate electrical circuit.

Subsequently, the agency published a final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration of the rule that required medium and heavy vehicles to be equipped with ABS (61 FR 5949, February 15, 1996). In response to the petitions, the 1996 document changed the requirements from dedicated power for trailer ABS systems to continuous power for trailer ABS systems. The relevant section of that standard now reads as follows:

S5.1.6.3  Antilock power circuit for towed vehicles.Each truck tractor manufactured on or after March 1, 1997, and each single unit vehicle manufactured on or after March 1, 1998, that is equipped to tow another air-braked vehicle shall be equipped with one or more electrical circuits that provide continuous power to the antilock system on the towed vehicle or vehicles whenever the ignition (start) switch is in the "on" ("run") position. Such a circuit shall be adequate to enable the antilock system on each towed vehicle to be fully operable. [emphasis added]

Accordingly, the February 1996 response to the petitions for reconsideration supersedes our November 17, 1995, letter of interpretation because FMVSS No. 121 no longer requires that the ABS power circuits sole function is to provide ABS powering.

To answer your specific question, S5.1.6.3 does not prohibit taking power from the ABS power circuit or the ABS module of a semi-trailer in order to power other semi-trailer devices. We note, however,that in our February 1996 response to petitions, we recognized that powering electrical devices other than the trailer ABS from the ABS power circuit has the potential to compromise the circuits ability to power the trailer ABS. We included a lengthy discussion of this issue in our notice, including a discussion of the types of devices that would not be likely to create problems. A copy of this portion of the notice (61 FR 5949 at p. 5952) is enclosed.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:121
d.10/21/04

ID: GF006103

Larry C. Dickinson, Ph.D.
Manager, Engineering & Technology
Martin Marietta Composites
PO Box 30013
Raleigh, NC 27622

Dear Mr. Dickinson:

This responds to your phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff and subsequent e-mail asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (FMVSS No. 223), S5.2.2 allows for "elastic deformation" as opposed to plastic deformation. Specifically, you ask whether the requirement that the energy absorption be accomplished by plastic deformation would preclude a material that returns to its original shape (i.e., elastic material).

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

FMVSS No. 223 requires that underride guards fitted to new trailers and semitrailers provide a certain amount of energy absorption to lessen the crash forces on a passenger vehicle colliding from the rear. In creating FMVSS No. 223, the agency sought to balance concerns associated with rear impact guards being overly rigid and non-yielding in rear impact crashes against those associated with the guards being insufficiently rigid to prevent intrusion of a trailer into a vehicle occupant compartment. Accordingly, the standard requires that a certain minimum amount of force be absorbed through "permanent yielding" or plastic deformation of the guard. [1] S5.2.2 of the standard states:

" [a] guard  . . .shall absorb by plastic deformation within the first 125 mm of deflection at least 5,650 J of energy at each test location P3."
(emphasis added).

The standards energy absorption requirement cannot be met by elastic deformation for two reasons. First, the language of the standard calls for plastic deformation. Second, the prescribed method of measuring the required energy absorption greatly restricts any elastic qualities of the rear impact guard. Specifically, any energy that the guard returns to the force application device when the load is removed (i.e., the elastic component of the deformation) is subtracted from the total energy absorption for purposes of meeting the requirement.

The requirement that guards absorb energy by plastic deformation was to ensure that the guard did not subsequently return the absorbed energy to the colliding vehicle, because that energy return could increase the chance of death or injury to the occupants. Any immediate rebound occurring after the crash event could pose a threat to passenger vehicle occupants.

In an August 4, 1998, letter to Mr. Toms of Power Brace (copy enclosed), NHTSA stated that the plastic deformation requirement of S5.2.2 does not preclude use of certain elastic materials that return to their original shape very slowly (approximately 24 hours). Based on your conversation with Mr. Feygin, it is our understanding that your question concerned materials that returned to their original shape immediately after impact.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:223
d.10/21/03





---

[1] See Preamble to the Final Rule, January 24, 1996 (61 FR 2004 at 2011).

ID: GF006332

Mr. Timothy C. Murphy
Vice President, Engineering
Peterson Manufacturing Company
4200 East 135^th Street
Grandview, MO 64030

Dear Mr. Murphy:

This responds to your letter dated August 18, 2004, asking whether strobing stop lamps or auxiliary lamps are permissible under the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

The Federal standard applicable to lighting equipment, including stop lamps, is FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. The relevant sections of that standard read as follows:

S5.5.10 The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:

(a) Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash;

(b) Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes;

(c) A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6;

(d) All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning. [emphasis added]

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 mandates that all lamps be steady burning, unless otherwise explicitly permitted.In the present case, stop lamps do not fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10 (a) through (c).Accordingly, FMVSS No. 108 requires stop lamps to be steady burning. We regard a strobe lamp as one that flashes. For this reason, the strobing stop lamps described in your letter would be prohibited by FMVSS No. 108, if they are installed as original equipment on motor vehicles.They would also be prohibited from being sold as replacement for original equipment stop lamps.Further, unless auxiliary lamps mentioned in your letter fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10 (a) through (c), they must also be steady burning.

This prohibition would also apply to aftermarket lighting installation because 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from making inoperative safety equipment installed in accordance with FMVSS No. 108 (and any other applicable FMVSS as well).Accordingly, installation of a strobing lamp not permitted by S5.5.10 would create a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108 which constitutes "making inoperative" within the meaning of the statute.

The list of persons prohibited from making vehicle modifications affecting compliance in 49 U.S.C. 30122 does not include vehicle owners.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/1/04

ID: GF006472

Mr. Jim Haigh
Vice President
Transpec Worldwide
7205 Sterling Ponds Ct.
Sterling Heights, MI 48312




Dear Mr. Haigh:

This responds to your e-mail regarding installation of certain auxiliary lighting on school buses. Specifically, you ask whether installing a "Driver Alert Device" on school buses, which you state has been mandated by the State of Alabama, conflicts with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment.

Your e-mail and your web site (www.transpecworldwide.com/products/driver_alert.htm) explain that the "Driver Alert Device" is an LED message board mounted on the school bus emergency door that is wired to flash the word "Caution" when the school bus is backing up. The device is also wired into the eight-lamp school bus warning lamp system. When the amber lamps of the system are activated, the LED sign alternately flashes "Caution-Stopping". When the red lamps of the system are activated, the sign flashes "Stop" or "Do not Pass".

First, S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108 generally requires that all lamps, including auxiliary lighting, must be steady burning, unless otherwise specifically permitted. Your message board does not fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10.

Second, S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108 prohibits additional lighting devices that impair the effectiveness of lamps required by FMVSS No. 108. The agency interprets the standard as generally prohibiting electronic message boards because they have the potential of impairing the effectiveness of required lighting (see August 4, 1997 letter to Mr. Alan Robinson).

However, with respect to school buses equipped with flashing electronic message boards, we do not prohibit them because we believe that under certain local conditions, an electronic message board could enhance the safety of school bus passengers. That is, we defer to the States with respect to the narrow issue of prescribing or prohibiting electronic message boards on school buses.

We caution that this interpretation is limited to electronic message boards on school buses. For example, the agency recently explained that our standards would prohibit a flashing red lamp located on the roof of a school bus, because it had the potential of impairing the effectiveness of the required lighting (see 5/22/03 letter to J. Adam Krugh IV). Further, electronic message boards must be located far enough away from the required lighting so as to minimize any potential impairment.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures

NCC-112:Gfeygin:mar:11/2/05:62992:OCC 006472
Cc: NCC-110 Subj/Chron, Docket Std. 108
S:\INTERP\108\GF006472.doc

ID: GF006474

Mr. Michael Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1300 19^th Street, NW, 5^th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-1609




Dear Mr. Kastner:

This is in response to your letter in which you requested an interpretation of the new tire information requirements in S4.3.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Specifically, you ask if the tire and rim information specified in S4.3.3 of FMVSS No. 110 could be set forth separately from the certification label. As discussed below, the answer is no. However, as we have indicated in the past, it is permissible to provide a certification label in two parts under certain circumstances.

S4.3.3 reads (with emphasis added) as follows:

Additional labeling information for vehicles other than passenger cars.Each vehicle shall show the size designation and, if applicable, the type designation of rims (not necessarily those on the vehicle) appropriate for the tire appropriate for use on that vehicle, including the tire installed as original equipment on the vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer, after each GAWR listed on the certification label required by 567.4 or 567.5 of this chapter. This information shall be in the English language, lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than 2.4 millimeters high and in the following format:

Truck ExampleSuitable Tire-Rim Choice

GVWR: 2,441 kilograms (5381 pounds).

GAWR: Front1,299 kilograms (2,864 pounds) with P265/70R16 tires, 16 8.0 rims at 248 kPa (36 psi) cold single.

GAWR: Rear1,299 kilograms (2,864 pounds) with P265/70R16 tires, 16 8.00 rims, at 248 kPa (36 psi) cold single.

The information required by S4.3.3 thus cannot appear separately from the certification label.

We note, however, that as we explained in a May 3, 1984, letter to Takeshi Tanuma of Nissan, NHTSA permits the use of a certification label in two parts, under certain circumstances. We explained that while the Part 567 certification regulations specify that "a label" must be used, the agency has permitted the use of a label in two parts in circumstances which will not lead to confusion and which will satisfy the basic intent of Part 567. Specifically, the two portions of the label must be placed in close proximity to each other, to permit individuals to readily find all the specified information and to leave no doubt as to the significance of either portion of the label. Further, the two portions must be oriented in such a manner that the specified information appears in the required order. As a practical matter, these considerations require that the two portions be affixed to the same vehicle part. While the agency did not specify a particular distance as a maximum permissible separation of the two portions of the label, we stated that the two portions must be located so as to leave the unmistakable impression that they provide related information.

Accordingly, the information required by S4.3.3 cannot be separated from the certification label. However, the certification label may be affixed in two parts under the circumstances described above.

We note that the information required by S4.3.3 cannot be added to the tire information placard required by S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110. As the agency previously explained in amending the tire safety information regulations, additional information is not appropriate because it would overcrowd the already content-rich vehicle placard (see 69 FR 31306 at 31311).

Finally, we note that in the end of your letter, you requested that, if a separate label is not permitted, the agency treat your letter as a request for rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 110 in order to afford vehicle manufacturers the option of specifying alternative tire and rim information separately from the certification label. However, your letter did not provide sufficient supporting information for us to determine whether rulemaking would be warranted.

If, after reviewing this letter, you still believe that rulemaking is needed, please submit a petition for rulemaking with detailed supporting information. Among other things, the agency would want to examine actual examples (photographs) of vehicles unable to display the information required by S4.3.3 on the usual certification label or a split certification label. We would also want to review additional information about spacing problems, and what location requirements might be appropriate for an additional label.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.11/16/05

ID: GF006496

Mr. Merrill Sutton
Tie Down Engineering, Inc.
5901 Wheaton Drive
Atlanta, GA 30336

Dear Mr. Sutton:

This responds to your facsimile and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff regarding the possibility of placing your companys name on "side two" of brake hoses manufactured by Meiji Rubber and Chemical, Ltd. (Meiji). You indicated that Meiji is duly registered with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) as a brake hose manufacturer. Further, Meiji is prepared to place your name, as a distributor, on "side two" of the brake hose.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106 (FMVSS No. 106) has certain labeling requirements. S5.2.1 of the standard states:

S5.2.1 Each hydraulic brake hose shall have at least two clearly identifiable stripes of at least one-sixteenth of an inch in width, placed on opposite sides of the brake hose parallel to its longitudinal axis. One stripe may be interrupted by the information required by S5.2.2, and the other stripe may be interrupted by additional information at the manufacturer's option." (Emphasis added.)

Based on the language of the standard, Meiji, as a manufacturer of brake hoses, is permitted to enter "additional information" on the other side of the brake hose at its option. Such "additional information" can include, among other things, the name of your company.

We note that one side (or "side one") of the brake hose must contain information as required by S5.2.2. Specifically, the one side of the brake hose must include: (a) the symbol DOT; (b) a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose; (c) the nominal inside diameter of the hose; (d) the month, day and year of manufacture; [1] and (e) either "HR" to indicate regular-expansion hydraulic hose or "HL" to indicate low-expansion hydraulic hose.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:106
d.10/9/03





---

[1] Your facsimile contained drawings of the brake hose in question. We note that the drawing of "side one" of the brake hose contains only the month and year of the manufacture but not the date.

ID: GF006498

Mr. Jack W. DeYoung
Tumbleweed Trucks, Inc.
318 Kwanzan Drive
Lynden, WA 98264

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

This responds to your facsimile dated August 29, 2003, seeking further clarification of our interpretation letter sent to you on August 7, 2003. In response to our August 7^th letter, you have reprogrammed the flash rate in your hazard warning signal flasher. You now ask whether the newly reprogrammed flash rate complies with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (Standard No. 108).

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

As previously discussed, SAE Recommended Practice J945, "Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher," February 1966 (SAE 945), is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, as the Federal Requirement for Flashers. Paragraph 3 of J945 and its accompanying Figure 1 specify requirements for "Flash Rate and Percent Current On Time." The flash rate must be 60 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally open" (i.e., variable load) flashers, and 90 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally closed" (i.e., fixed load) flashers. This paragraph also specifies that:

"flashing rate . . . shall be measured after the flashers have been operating for a minimum of five consecutive cycles and shall be an average of at least three consecutive cycles." (emphasis added)

Your newly reprogrammed flash pattern operates as follows (in milliseconds):

ON	OFF	ON	OFF	ON	OFF
200	250	200	250	200	850

Our calculations indicate that the above flash pattern, taking into account the averaging procedure set forth in J945, is within the specified flash rate.

In considering this issue further, however, we believe this type of flash pattern is very different from what NHTSA contemplated in incorporating J945 by reference in Standard No. 108. As you know, existing flashers operate at an essentially constant rate. Moreover, while Figure 1 of J945 permits considerable flexibility in flash rate, our calculations indicate that the flash rate and percent current on time for each and every cycle of your flash pattern fall outside the figure.

As we have stated before, we believe that motor vehicle safety is best promoted by standardization of lighting signals. The information currently provided by signal lamps, such as flashers, is well understood by the driving public, instantly recognized, and unambiguously informative. We are concerned that very different flash patterns have the potential to cause confusion. Therefore, we plan in the near future to modify Standard No. 108 in a way that would preclude your design.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/2/04